Strategy Ruminations

[evolvingape]

Hi,

I agree with you that the ultimate goal should be a publicly demonstrable self-sustaining device that is OU. It should also be replicated easily and numerously with full theory and plans available.

Once OU is achieved at a suitable ratio of 1+ EEG will follow in short order and everything changes.

I cannot agree with you that we should work individually utilising only our own skill sets. The greatest ability of the human race in my opinion is to cooperate on a common goal. This is what has been denied to us over many years through control mechanisms, but the Internet blew those mechanisms apart. These days it seems to be fear, ego and greed that are preventing sharing of information.

I remember years ago when I started looking into OU the minefield I encountered when trying to work out what field I was going to pursue. There is just so much misinformation and fraudsters around that it can be a daunting prospect for a newbie to decipher.

My own personal view was that the best route for me to personally follow was HHO and Turbine technology. I felt this was where I could add potential to the movement.

I rejected Magnet motors for one simple reason. No Torque to speak of that could be utilised. Steorn has this very problem, what good is a motor that stalls every time you add the load ? Its just a pretty spinning toy. Magnet motors have potential but IMO only when we have an OU device supplying the electrical prime mover impulse at no cost.

HHO on the other hand has a violent reaction that produces lots of useable Torque and is ideal for running a powerfull motor and doing work.

My point is that to keep your information to yourself hinders the development for everyone. It also is counter productive in the sense that the young newbies, struggling through the dis-info, have to wade through the same shit we all did.

Why not have a coming together of minds and knowledge and draw a line in the sand of where we are at this moment in all the different branches of OU. Maybe this would inspire someone to have an insight that would seriously advance a particular field for everyone.

I remember reading about a lecture Tesla gave once regarding his discovery of an electrically induced violent reaction with the Aether. This is probably very similar to a voice coil event, like the Kundel Motor, but the energy supplying the reaction coming from an infinite Aether and not a finite magnet. This would be an interesting route to explore with huge potential.

RM

[Omnibus]

I, of course, am not advocating working for yourself and hiding things. However, all the ideas about these machines are usually trivial and there is no need to exchange trivialities. We've seen too much of that. It clutters the discussions and the grains of useful advances remain hidden in the piles of useless talk. It is better to come out when there is really some experimental achievement worthwhile to share. Peer-reviewed literature cuts out a lot of the useless clutter but it many times hinders advances so it isn't the best alternative. Better yet is to develop some sense of self-restraint and reign the tendencies to post anything that comes to your mind. I know that's utopian to require in a free forum such as this but at least we can try.

[evolvingape]

Hi,

I am glad we agree that working for personal gain and hiding information is not in the collective interest

I would be interested in your opinion on my decision to post all my work as theory without having built the devices. When I had the money to build them I did not have the designs, when I had the designs I did not have the money.

Miracles do happen. I had one happen today. The financial burden I was in that was about to bury me was lifted today by outside intervention. So I am a much happier chap today than I was yesterday

Are you saying that in your opinion I was wrong in principle to post all my work when in a situation where I was unable to verify it experimentally ?

The fact that my position has changed dramatically in the last few hours means I may now be able to build and test my designs next year. This is wonderfull news to me

It also means I am months behind the people who have already started and probably finishing the prototypes. All of us working together to verify if my designs have potential are a surer and quicker route to those answers.

I can understand what you are saying about 'trivial' comments. I myself have never posted any information in 10 years simply because I was not sure what I would add would be of value.

I chose to finally publish all my work when it appeared that I would be unable to continue. Would holding onto it until my situation improved, then the years it would take me to build it all and experimentally test it, be of benefit to the rest of the human race ?

RM

[Omnibus]

See, aside from the self-sustaining device which is the main focus of my interest, I would be interested to read theoretical analysis showing that OU is inherent in the very theory of electrcity or any other branch of physics for that matter. I have shown that in several texts ( including the text I attached above) but I'm sure there's more. Such studies have been deliberately ignored by the mainstream and all the attention is desperately drawn away from instances where CoE is violated. Most other ideas, if not implemented in experimental devices with with good data analysis, such as Steorn's, for instance, I would largely ignore or will just give it a cursory view. That's my approach. Others may differ and that's OK. We live in a free world.

[Omnibus]

@All,

Those of you who have been following my studies know that I've come up with a theoretical analysis (I cited that text in my initial post) which shows that the possibility to produce excess energy (to violate CoE) is inherently present in the theory of electricity. The OU effect shows under some special, yet physically viable, conditions (seen in the excel sheet, voltage offset being one significant condition) while under other conditions missing, as expected. I'm attaching that text again here, because of some typos that had to be corrected.

As I've mentioned earlier, to find a hitherto unknown inherent discrepancy in the existing theory, especially such violation CoE, is second best in our battle to get the OU idea across to society, to demonstrating a self-sustaining device.

A theoretical analysis is also a check against which we would know as to whether or not our measuring procedures are correct. This would help us understand the Steorn, Bedini, Lawrence, TPU etc. experimental results and the results of their critics -- how much we can rely on the claims for experimental excess energy and how accurate is the criticism. Many here in this forum know that I went out of my way in the Summer to achieve an accurate methodology for these experiments. I ended up getting an expensive Hall effect current probe alongside with the Tektronix DPO 2014. Unfortunately, the voltage probes I used were passive voltage probes and that posed the question as to the effect of their input impedance on the results. So, after a discussion with some good members of the forum such as @gyulasun, it was established that I should get an active voltage probe. So I did. I got Tektronix P6243 active voltage probe.

As seen from the attached spreadsheets, as already established, under the studied conditions OU effect is missing even theoretically. What makes an impression, however, is that the experimental input power value does not reproduce the theoretically found one by about an order of magnitude. So, before going any further in trying to reproduce the theoretical result (as seen from example.csv, I cannot study with the available apparatus I have the 1.14V amplitude condition because both I and V then are below its detection limits) that discrepancy has to be explained away.

Thus, before going any further one should answer the question why is it that while the experimental output power (based on the readings of the current probe) do reproduce the theoretical output power, the experimental input power (based also on the voltage probe measurement data) are off by about an order of magnitude compared to the theoretical input power? Supposedly, this is the best voltage probe one can use for such studies. Why the discrepancy, then?